Fuji really has plans for a Super Fast XF 33mmF1.0 (SRP)! POLL: Should Fuji go ahead and make it?

[Johan]

I would want it to have the same build and filter size of the 23mm and 56mm.  I think that would be a great combination.  23mm 33mm 56mm all with 62mm filter size. (35mm 50mm 85mm in 35mm format) I would pick it up if priced around $1000

[CRAusmus]

I think this would be great.  I was listening to the WeShootFuji Podcast and they interviewed one of the Fuji reps who talked about the 16, and why they made the 16 with it so close to the 14.  He had stated that they made it because the focal length is such an iconic length and they considered it part of their fast lens group, like the 23, 35 and 56.  However given the issues many have with the 35, this would be a great opportunity to make this lens.

[pez]

Back in 1968 I was loaned a Minolta 50mm f1.2 lens and body, it had been purchased in the far east by a ships chief engineer. Big glass! but the results were stunning, the image quality was not just sharp but smooth. But the one big downfall that is applicable to-day is the lack of depth of field.

 

I know some people like wide aperture lens so that when its closed down a touch you get edge to edge sharpness.  But to-days lens are very good edge to edge so there is no need to pay the extra and carry the extra weight.

 

Before digital cameras film sensativeity was low so there was a need for wide aperture lens but now?

[Marc G.]

I'd get that in a heartbeat if it has improved AF over the 35 1.4 and is as good at 1.0 as the current 1.4 is wide open.

[Larry Bolch]

Horrors! Three lenses of normal focal length! What is Fuji thinking?

Well, I just checked the B&H site and there are 33 lenses between 45mm and 60mm that fit Nikon, and 20 that fit Canon. Even humble Pentax has six. Fujifilm set out with a pretty impressive basic roadmap of lenses and has done a reasonably good job of delivering. We are beyond the basics, so why not a super fast lens highly corrected for wide-open shooting like the Leica Noctilux and the Noct-Nikkor? Both were superb back when ISO800 was considered a super-speed film. Why not a water resistant low-speed, but high quality normal, or one that covers all aspects of general photography quite well, like our present f/1.4? An f/2.8 pancake would be a lovely street lens. 

 

The basics have been well covered for a year or more. Now fill in any gaps and give us choices to match our needs.

[spivey]

An f/1.0 lens? Yes, I'd definitely want Fuji to make one. Make sure it gets a fast, noiseless focus motor, not a slow and buzzing one.

[joshinthecity]

Just take my money Fuji..

[Phil]

Before digital cameras film sensativeity was low so there was a need for wide aperture lens but now?

 

There are still times where you need the extra speed. If I'm shooting something like a concert or candids for a pub, it can get crazy dark in there - f/1.4, 1/60-1/125, 3200-6400. I consider 1/125 the reasonable minimum for shooting people, especially candids where they aren't posing. 6400 looks great on the Fujis, but if I could get that down to 3200 or 1600 while maintaining 1/125, it would make a big difference. Plus, with candid stuff like that, you usually have enough working distance that you still have some depth of field, so apertures that fast are still usable.

[frod]

Sorry for bumping an old thread but I'd be well up for an F/1.0 but I think I'd prefer a 23 or 27 f/1.0, the 40 degree field of view is a bit constricting. It feels like a legacy of the SLR days.

[darknj]

Sorry for bumping an old thread but I'd be well up for an F/1.0 but I think I'd prefer a 23 or 27 f/1.0, the 40 degree field of view is a bit constricting. It feels like a legacy of the SLR days.

 

Honestly, why would you need F1 for wide angle ? Except for really low light condition where you have to take the shoot really fast, I really don't see any usage for such a lens. Also, it would HUMONGOUS, 33mm F1 is already going to be large but going wider will make it really freakingly large, take a look at the Canon 50mm F1.2 that thing is really big, I can't even begin to imagine something akin to a 35mm F1.0 on full frame sensor.

 

Let's not even talk about the laws of physics of such a lens. The 33mm F1.0 would be a marvel of technology already.

[frod]

You just gave every reason why I want one there. It would be a unique low light prime. Also being mirrorless and aps-c makes the canon size comparison a bit meaningless.

[frod]

Besides, voigtlander make a wider f/0.95 than this for mft already. There is precedent.

[darknj]

Besides, voigtlander make a wider f/0.95 than this for mft already. There is precedent.

 

All size kept to ratio, the Voigtlander is really a big lens of the M43 system, thanks to the sensor size, the lens doesn't look grotesque on the body, but still, some super zooms are about the size of that lens.

 

Mikaton also did it with a 35mm F0.95 for the XF mount, but the IQ coming out of it, while decent, is far far lesser than we have been spoiled by Fuji lenses.

 

Also, it will be full manual focus. I have no idea of your manual focus abilities, but if you tell me you can beat the camera's speed consistently, you sir have developed a set of skills that would make you invaluable as a sports cameraman.

 

At F1.0 the DoF would be ridiculously small, we are speaking of millimeters, going manual focus and try to capture fast moving subjects would make that lens unusable for a lot of photographers in that situation. Pro or not.

 

The comparison to Canon FF is not as useless as you think, it's not because it's a mirror less camera that the lenses are smaller, lens size are always compared to the sensor size, mirrorless or not doesn't really come into the equation, at least not on the rough sketches.

But even if we scale it down, that 33mm F1 would be, by guesstimate, the size of the 18-55. A XF mount 23mm could be around a 16-55mm sizewise.

 

I know a lot of us want those hyperprimes but they do come with a cost, size, weight, IQ and/or no AF. Until we find way to bend the law of physics in our current world, I would rather have something practical rather a dreamy lens that would have everything.

 

Comparatively speaking, if I wanted something for really low light performance coupled with speed, Nikon D4S or Sony A7S if the resolution is less important than getting a shot. Otherwise one can wait for the Nikon D5 or the next iteration of the Sony A7S.

 

As we all say, the right tool for the right job.

[frod]

Nothing you said there is contrary to my expectations tbh. I don't see how it doesn't apply to a 33 instead of 27 or whatever anyway. If you don't want an f/1.0, that's fine, nobody is forcing you.